DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

37 (1). d) For Section 44C to apply two conditions need to be satisfied: (i) first, the expenditure in question must necessarily fall within the definition of the head office expenditure as defined in clause (iv) of the Explanation below Section 44C. and (ii) secondly, by virtue of clause (c), expenditure incurred by the assessee should be in the nature

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 11. The dispute in this batch of civil appeals centers around the year(s) in which deduction would be admissible for the increased liability under Section 37

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 37(1) of the Act expressly disallows any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence

PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)

In the result, we allow that appeal partly and remit the

section 37(2) of the I.T. Act The Income-tax Officer treated the payment of Rs.19635 as penal interest and disallowed

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 37(1) would disallow tax payers from claiming “protection money, extortion, hafta, bribes, etc.” as business expenditures,14 from

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

disallowed by the A.O. on the ground that the liability was merely a contingent liability not allowable as a deduction under Section 37

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 37 is per se not excluded. 15 23. This court is of the opinion however, that in the facts of this case, the judgment in Southern Technologies (supra) on this issue (where the claim of bad and doubtful debt was disallowed

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

37 of the IT Act, entitled to deduction. According to the appellant(s), Section 45IA of the RBI Act defines “NOF”. The Explanation (I) to the said Section defines “NOF” as the aggregate of paid-up equity capital and free reserves. According to the appellant(s), if “Provision for 11 NPA” is treated as reserve, it would increase

THE COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S.SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD

Appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs

37(1) excludes those items of expenditure which expressly falls in Sections 30 to 36. The effect is to delimit the scope of allowability of deductions for repairs to the extent provided for in Sections 30 to 36. To decide the applicability of Section 31(i) the test is not whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature, which

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 143(3) of the Act the claim of 17 depreciation on non-compete fee was disallowed by following the earlier order of assessment in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 1999-2000 holding that the expenditure was in no way connected with the acquisition of various assets. The disallowance in this regard was worked

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non- obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40(a)(ia) and Board’s Circular No. 715, dated 08.8.1995, the payment made to the truck owners/operators, exceeding to Rs. 20,000/- without deducting tax at source is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee firm which works out to Rs. 57,11,625/-, supra. The assessee has shown total payments in Truck Freight

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

Section 37(1) of the IT Act stand fulfilled since: a. the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business being carried out by the assessee; b. it has been expended during the accounting year in 14 question. c. it is not on any personal account of the assessee; d. it is not in the nature

M/S. W. T. SUREN & CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY

37(1) of the 1961 Act. The Income-tax Officer referred to the amount as "retrenchment compensation" while the assessee claimed it as gratuity. The High Court said that in either case, the amount cannot be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(ii). It was found that the assessee was continuing to carry on its business. High Court observed

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. TR. M.D. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

The appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are

37(1) of the Act, and he also took into consideration an increased liability of foreign exchange loans taken in capital account and repaid in the accounting year, for the purposes of depreciation, under Section 43A of the Act. He, however, did not allow to the Assessee its claim for foreign exchange loss claimed on such foreign currency loans both

RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with costs

Section 37 of the Act in computing its income under the head profits and gains of business of business or profession. The Income Tax Officer allowed only so much of the expenditure as could be allocated to the taxable income and disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

37 were contrasted with Section 16 which deals with deduction from salary. The language here is "the income chargeable under the head "salary" shall be computed after making the following deductions namely: -". Mr. Dastur like Mr. Verma also referred to judgments of the High Courts giving diverse views. High Courts of Allahabad and Madras supported the view canvassed

ESKAYEF NOW KNOWN AS SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PRARMACEUTICALS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA-II BANGAALORE

In the result, we are not presuaded to take a view

section 37 of the Act. Therefore, the appellante authority as exclusion of the expenditure on free samples supplied to the doctors in working out disallowance